Does aggregate spending address a lack of regulations?

I have always considered recessions to be a time when resources are reallocated to more efficient uses. The causes are often difficult to identify. I think it is probably true that Federal Reserve policy has much to do with this recession. I also think past bailouts and the existence of the FDIC had created a severe moral hazard problem. Although I do not think that regulation would have been helpful or beneficial, I think it is certainly possible that America's relatively free and open economy allowed for the spread of financial instruments that turned out to be full of hidden risks. Read Nassim Nicholas Taleb's The Black Swan.
The market is and had been self-regulating against these types of financial devices but governmental and other types of intervention have slowed down this problem. There is no free lunch.
However, for argument's sake, let's assume that lax regulations were responsible for the recession. Why would an increase in aggregate spending be an appropriate solution? It does nothing to address the underlying problems of this scenario. It seems that fiscal stimulus merely attempts to address the symptoms of the disease: a drop in consumer spending. But, in reality, this drop in consumer spending isn't some mysterious vacuous change with no other causes. Fiscal stimulus is (unsuccessfully) attempting to cure the disease by ignoring it. It is a political strategy.
I am not saying that a more regulated economy would be a healthier economy, I am just pointing out logical fallacies working within the paradigm of the left.